You are correct, most of what I said involved sharing my own take. I stand behind that. My real issue seems to be that I bought the camera for its fairly low cost and not for anything more than to have something better than a G-12/P7100 on hand for some spontaneous shooting. My problem with the camera is viewing it as really nothing more than being better than an advanced compact and accepting that. Instead, I get pulled back into a thought process of wanting to take the best technical images the camera can produce. We know that kit lenses cannot do that. This is where is short circuit...and hence I am working through it.

I grant you that the highlights are better protected with the E-M5 but that can be addressed by using AEB in the GX-1. GH-2 is close but not better than GX-1, read the reviews/tests.

papillon_65
wrote:

joe talks photography gear
wrote:

After reading Popular Photography's review of the E-M5 I am confident I didn't see much in the way of any image quality over the best of the Panasonic crowd introduced to date, most notably the GX-1. Taking into consideration Panasonic's approach to noise suppression, you get essentially the same output for $448(with evf) less than the E-M5 with the low tier kit lens. Hence, beyond the hype, it comes down to the which body type/controls/shooting experience do you prefer.

Nope, I had the GH2 which is on a par with the GX-1 and the OMD has better IQ. It's not a huge difference but it is there, especially when it comes to protecting the highlights.

Now onto my own query as to how much is too much when investing in a 4/3 system...especially when the tech gains, while great, are readily outclassed by mid-level DSLRs(and don't forget the large-sensored small form camera crowd!). I am in the group of shooters/hobbyists who have migrated to the small form cameras with APS-C sensors or the 1" variety. However, I have owned many a 4/3 camera, starting with EP-1 and GF-1 with at least 5 others in between. Each time I do this I have to keep myself in check with regard to lens collection/expense. Even more so now as lens prices for the best of the best m4/3 readily exceed the cost of the camera body.

No, not a query, more of an opinion. That's fine but the OMD isn't outclassed by many mid level DSLR's and as for large sensored compacts you really have to be joking.

For me, one very decent lens to squeeze out the m4/3 body's IQ potential is as far as I can allow myself to go. Hey, I have spent $$$ back when I shot my 5D MkII, I just am not willing to over-invest in m4/3. Other's will no doubt not be self-restrained by my belief that m4/3 is really good when the total price for your 'kit' is relative to its performance when measured against other systems. That said, I am struggling to select that one decent lens for my as yet unopened GX-1 and evf...that I may end up shipping back for the Sony RX-100 that will give me more IQ-as good/better at the lowest ISO settings than my unopened GX-1 with its well reviewed sensor/lens combo.

So not really a question at all, more of an opinion to the effect that an m4/3's camera and a kit lens isn't a world beater. Well that's hardly news but it's an interchangeable lens system so you need to buy the decent lenses to get the real performance. So you bought an m4/3's camera with the intention of not buying any lenses for it? Strange decision and you would be better off with an RX100, especially if you don't appreciate what lenses like the 25mm F1.4, 7-14mm, 12mm F2, 75mm F1.8, 45mm F1.8 etc etc can do for a camera like the GX-1